Talk:DAMP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I added a warning since I don't have the time to fix the problems right now. See this talk page for background. --Denis Diderot 10:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was orginally a section that I wrote for the article Christopher Gillberg. After that section was written, Denis Diderot objected as follows.

... the section devotes too much space to criticism. There must be balance. (The quotes from Rutter and Rydelius could be used, but they have to be put in a proper context and balanced by other opinions.) ... --Denis Diderot 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This objection seems unwarranted, because virtually no one outside the Gillberg group has considered DAMP even worthy of study: Gillberg himself acknowledged this (and the article contains a citation for that). Also, the quotes are in context.  —Daphne A 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the only problem, but it's certaintly part of the problem. What you perhaps don't fully appreciate is that "DAMP" is just a term. Medical researchers don't do research on terms, that's for linguists. They also don't do research on concepts, that's for philosophy and allied disciplines. The research has been on children with DAMP, or "ADHD with DCD", or "hyperkinetic disorder with a developmental disorder of motor function", or whatever you may prefer to call it. The research on DAMP has been used and cited in hundreds of papers by researchers outside the Gillberg group, even when these other researchers don't use the term "DAMP". And yes the quotes were put in a context by you, but not the proper context. --Denis Diderot 07:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks like more sophistic word games. Also Gillberg himself said that virtually all other researchers (beside his co-workers) were ignoring DAMP. And what is the "proper context"? Your response does not seem to address the points in the article.  —Daphne A 08:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)